Sunday, November 29, 2009

Child abuse by Catholic Church clergy

Share |
Here is an article in The Spectator by Alex Massie which follows the child abuse issue in Ireland by Catholic clergy. I'm sure you can find more stories in your own country. Makes me wonder why I've never written about this abuse before.
We also see sex abuse claims in religious cults. Can anyone make the connection? Institutions of abuse. If its moral to give, its practical to take/receive. I thus suggest you approach life as a 'trader' exchanging value for value, whereby you show some regard or respect for your counterparty.
Andrew Sheldon

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Arguments against evolution

Share |
Richard Dawkins has done a good job dispelling arguments against evolution in this article. Read his arguments from creationists about the evidence against evolution at Newsweek.

Actually reading the newspaper today, apparently there is new evidence suggesting a further link between chimps and homosapiens called 'ardipithecus ramidus. He is neither a human nor a chimp, but something in between. You can read this story at the NZ Herald. The evidence grows for evolution whilst there is no evidence against. No creationists can find evidence against evolution. There are no misplaced fossils. From creationists however we are already getting the rationalisation that the Bible is just a story to depict ethical principles, and not a factual document.
Andrew Sheldon

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

False profits of Creationism

Share |
There are few scientists who still retain a belief in creationism. This might be regarded as evidence enough that creationism needs no further consideration. I care to differ. Science is not a democracy. It only takes one thinker to be right, and often its a critical thinker who goes against the majority.

DNA EVOLVED BY CHANCE? - Watch the best video clips here
Here is a video by a scientist against Evolution. Interesting he is not identified by name, he does not identify as a Christian, he does not identify as a Creationism, nor does he pose an alternative explanation. His argument that Evolution is Stupid appears to be based on the fact that:
1. Humanity is not at the top of the evolutionary chain. He rests this argument on the belief that complexity is synonymous with 'higher' or 'intelligent' life forms. I would suggest that is a weak argument. Life only needs to become intelligent if its life depends upon it. Humans are surviving with 42 chromosomes, so why do they need 100 (like a carp).
2. Common evolution: There is no evidence to suggest that humanity developed from the same ancestor. I actually agree with his statement here. There is no necessity for all life forms to share a common lineage, though there does need to be a sequence or progress from simple to complex. This is why its probable that humanity shares a common lineage, but its not a requirement. It in no way supports any argument against evolution though.
3. Common building blocks: He suggests that the reason why we can eat other life forms is because of common DNA. I reject that. Plenty of poisonous plants I cannot eat. The fact that we come from a pool of 20 amino acids is not relevant.
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, August 24, 2009

Charles Darwin and the principle of evolution

Share |
Charles Darwin in 1859 released his book outlining the process of 'natural selection' by which living things have evolved on Earth. In this video about evolution Richard Attenborough highlights in single terms the process by which natural selection accounts for the development of all life forms including humanity. It is noteworthy that important fossil finds are still being made today which give ever greater clarity to this natural process. Radiometrics have also been important in determining the age of fossils and rocks, whilst the genetics is promising to unlock even further discoveries.

My particular interest is in the value of science to the development of philosophy and politics. What this video does highlight on this subject is how religion is not only a repudiation of science, it played a big part in repressing scientific development. Darwin postponed publication of his works out of deferrence to the ignorance, superstition and fears of his Christian brethren. Today science and indeed all knowledge and even our livelihoods are being repressed by religion. Such is the depth of the betrayal of human nature.
You can see the video about Charles Darwin and evolution at this website.
Andrew Sheldon - just as importantly Andrew Sheldon evolves. Always testing convention.

Friday, August 14, 2009

The Universe - A justification for God

Share |
People look at the magnificence of the universe, its expanse and complexity, and conclude that this is evidence of a God. I look at this reality and consider it justification for no God. Let's consider the evidence:
1. Science suggests that the universe is 20 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Despite this Christianity is a very human-centric philosophy. I cannot argue that religion is consistent with science, whether astrophysics or human nature. Religion to me is a repudiation of everything I know. I can disprove every argument you can make about religion.
2. Grand design: The idea that the universe is a miraculous design, so there must be a designer. This ignores the reality that there was no conscious designer for the universe, it developed or unfolded as a result of its nature. i.e. The materials comprising the universe developed as they must, in accordance with their physical properties.
3. Creation. The argument that there must be a God, otherwise who created the universe 20 billion years ago. The origin of the universe is a speculative issue, however I would posit that the universe was never created; that it has always existed. I would assert that every 20 billion or so the universe goes through a 'Big Bang', or sometimes perhaps smaller bangs. I don't think the universe has the uniformity in its evolution as posited by physicists.
4. Motive: A human-centric God as the maker of the universe and humanity is dubious when you consider the requirement for God to be so patient. He would have to wait 4 billion years for the Earth to form, and 20 billion years for the universe to develop before he could have created humanity. It seems more probable that he does not exist, and Christians are ignorant idiots.
5. Causation: The idea of a God defying all the natural laws that drive every other physical entity is another basis for driving a peg through the Christian hypothesis/'scare model'. The Christian philosophy is a repudiation of human nature, as shown elsewhere.

For a greater appreciation the smallness of humanity in the context of the universe watch this video clip. I recommend it not to show how small you are. You are very important to you, and to anyone who values you. You cannot detach the value from the valuer, which it was Christianity asserts. You are not intrinsically good. You are good for determined by a thing which has the capacity to value, whether your pet dog, a presidential nominee, or your wife.

Andrew Sheldon

Religion in Western countries

Share |
People reading my religious blog might be inclined to find me very critical about religion. They might find merit in my statements about religion in the third world. True, the third world is full of desperate people who use religion as a crux to manipulate or deceive others out of money. They will assert in defence of religion 'that that does not happen in the West'.

I want to make a number of points to dispel any residue Christianity in you:
1. Religion in the Western colonies was just as manipulative historically as it was in the third world. Afterall religion was essentially a 'franchise for manipulation' developed in the West before it was spread to the developing nations. You can consider religion to be the first franchise. It was not about accumulating money, it was about accumulating souls.
2. Modern religion is not as manipulative as it was in the old days because general standards of education standards have improved. Not just in your country, but internationally. Churches have to apply quality control measures. Yet no accountability or special ethical standards have been adopted by organised religion. It is all about managing perceptions. In fact, with respect to sexual abuse, the church has proven highly secretive, soliciting confidentiality agreements and offering pay-offs to 'aggrieved' persons. In the same way the Church has also been protective of its 'brand', and it maintains strict compliance with central policy. This would be understandable and logic if indeed logic and judgement were facets of religion, but they are repudiated by the churches. Faith and acceptance were the premises I was raised upon.
3. Rule of law. You cannot get away with deceit in the West as you can in developing countries. People in developed countries have more to lose from breaking the law, both in terms of future employability, damages from any successful law suit, and the prospect of imprisonment. In developing countries, people are less likely to seek legal remedy, police are less likely to take action, and courts are more readily paid off. The poor have no chance against the rich, if only because they don't have the education or support to take successful action.
4. Ethical values. Traditional values in developing countries are often of a low standard, particularly in the lower income portion of the population. There tends to be greater reliance on gratuities, a stronger desire for 'easy gains', greater cynicism about the system (thus greater willingness to breach the rules of that system), less judgement, greater acceptance of collectivist/religious philosophies (ie. They embody these philosophies as opposed to giving lip-service to them). In truth they are the practical manifestation of a Christian people, yet they are materially and spititually they are broke. They have greater integrity than any rich man in their city because they have nothing to give.
5. Western romanticism. The Romantic tradition associated with the Western Industrialisation is a philosophical system that sits juxtaposed against the naturalism of the prior period. Unfortunately romanticism never had a complete philosophical justification. It was smeared by collectivists who far out-numbered the logical exponents of justice. Romanticism still requires a defence today.
Andrew Sheldon

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Religion breeds hypocrisy

Share |
I'm back in the Philippines. Walking around the neighbourhood yesterday a curious gentleman asked me where am I from. Suddenly another neighbour zeroed in on the conversation. Where are you from? Are you staying in the village? Who are you staying with? Are you married? Do you have any children?
One gets the impression these people are victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Such problem solving skills? So purposeful. It might make you ponder exactly what purpose they are intent on solving. Well no problem per se, except the sins of the world. But is that really their intent. Well no. But either is it to be a good Christian since there really is no such thing. There are only Christians with fewer contradictions. These are the most hypocritical Christians you will ever find. Severely crippled, conflicted minds. Never have you passed across such judgemental people.....and to what end?
I personally engage in a great deal of judgement. Nothing wrong with judgement. The problem is with judges who don't self-reflect. Their purpose is not so much seeking a truth, but running away from one. Fine I say, judge me. There are just two problems with the existence of such people:
1. They have the vote - which means they have some level of power, though in a 'modern' democracy the vote really means very little. In fact, never did it really mean much, so I don't know why people talk it up, like we have freedom. We have the pretense of it.
2. They have the power to initiate force. Far be it for me to incite violence, but the reality is that these people are reproached by a mind like mine for several reasons. (i) I'm educated. (ii) I'm a symbol of the West, (iii) I'm wealthier than them, (iv) I'm consistent in my ideas, (v) I'm courageous, and finally (vi) I am confident.
I am a repudiation of everything they believe in, except their most basic premises (which no one can refute), so they are forced to hate me, to castigate me, to judge. But they will never reflect on the reasons. They are not that honest. In fact they don't even appraise me on a conceptual level. Instead they are motivated by fearings. There are several things they look for: (i) A desire to forge relationships by finding common ground, (ii) An interest in their lives, because they want to talk about themselves, (iii) Finding an excuse to engratiate themselves into your life.
Just because they see more evidence that I am not their type. Don't think that this would repell them. On the contrary, it would be a basis for rationalising or justifying their ultimate purpose, to use me in some way. Being a foreigner, they think I have money to share with them, visa assistance to grant them, or a daughter whom I can marry. In the Philippines I am often offered a prospective wife. I am less surprised to see women do that since they support their children's best interests. Be wary when siblings are setting you up. They are hoping for the day when you will support their alcohol or drug habit.
This is of course the seedier side of the Philippines, whether its the pretentious 'no class' landed class or the uneducated, desperate poor living on hopes. Fortunately I am a diamond-hunter, and as a diamond hunter I am only interested in understanding 'dirt' as long as it helps me find diamonds.
Slightly less painful as dealing with these religious hypocrites is dealing with people who give weight to the assertions or judgements of these people. The victims and fence sitters need to assert their views if such arguments are to be overcome. They are cowards only emboldened by the belief that they embody the social conscience. That is why they hate me so much. I am only accepted by pluralistic thinkers. They too might be conflicted, but they are at the very least (i) Not threatening, (ii) Open to alternative ideas.
The problem of course is that their capacity to know the truth is limited by their lack of conceptual skills. They have been sabotaged by the same Christian dogma as the neighbourhood snakes. The problem is that they are not for me, they are just not against me. They do judge, but its sting is benign because they have effectively desexed themselves, removing the last vestiges of moral pride. They have decided that ethics is subjective. "What is right for you, is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me'. This of course does not prevent coercion, though it tends to be subtler than the snakes in the neighbourhood. They will tend to not repay loans rather than steal money. But they also don't share the same ambition, and they might be safe enough to be beyond even such pettiness. Such souls have long been attractive to protective men who like to be taken care of. So long as you allow such people to believe that, you will pose no threat to them, and them no threat to you.
This dichotomy is the basis for the perpetrator-victim culture we find in the Church. We need to look at organised religion as a business system. Its a place where people come not for religious salvation but business connections. The price of admission is a paltry some. If you pay more you get to network with a higher 'class' of people. i.e. More money which means more influence, that assumes you can connect or resonate in the minds of these people. Money is power in the Church as well. But its not enough. You need to be influential. You need to make people feel good. Not by setting new standards, but by dropping them. By making every person you connect with feel that you have a special bond with them, and then having the diplomacy to drop them like a sack of potatoes as you move on to the next person. This is the realm of modern diplomacy as it is practiced in the Church, politics and business. Some business is different because it demands some level of standards, i.e. We have higher standards for engineers, architects, doctors, and sometimes accountants and CEOs, depending on the stage of the economic cycle.
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, May 25, 2009

Politics in the Catholic Church

Share |
There was an interesting story on ‘Australian Story’ tonight about a Catholic priest at St Marys Church is Brisbane. Father Kennedy was evicted as administrator of St Mary’s because of his alleged ‘unCatholic’ practices. It showed how ‘unCatholic’ the Vatican is, because it sends out spies to check on its parish administrators. Now, one cannot blame them for taking an interest or for investigating the conduct of Father Kennedy. Without question he is engaging in controversial practices, but then two issues were overlooked:
1. The Church survives on the contributions of its members. In this case Father Kennedy has the overwhelming support of his congregation
2. The Church never had a dialogue with the Father to establish the facts, or his position on them.
3. The Church was lacking objective perspective, and certainly it was acting with a ideological zeal that cannot be good for the Church.

This case highlights the hypocrisy of the Church or religious institutions. There is no question there are two issues here:
1. The ethical values of the Church – the institution
2. The ethical values of religion – as displayed by Father Kennedy, or anyone else who displays religious conviction which is independent or free thinking

It is apparent that the Vatican wants to dictate how its Church administrators conduct themselves. The problem for this administrator was that he embraced homosexuals, allowed women to address the congregation and even allowed them to address the Church. One can understand why this man was highly regarded by his congregation. He made people feel they mattered. The Church on the other hand wants to tell people how it is. It has an ideological agenda. That’s ok, but it’s an agenda divorced from the facts of reality. The Vatican is living in the past.
With respect to Father Kennedy, I support him to the extent that he has his own judgement, I support that he earnestly believes he is right, but he to departs from facts with respect to his values. Implicit in his values are that values are intrinsic, that people are good in themselves, regardless of what that may do. This is a hard position to maintain because he is not in a position where he can thus criticise the actions of the Church. No wonder he went relatively silently, but not before knocking the camera out of the hands of a spy from the Vatican. He displays the flawed values inherent in religion, though I respect his stand of relative merit. The Church is an autocratic institution; clearly there is no room for liberals. Clearly his popularity is a reproach to the institutional hierarchy. Further related news here and here.
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, April 6, 2009

Persecuting the majority

Share |
We have all heard of the Jews who were persecuted. Well no one likes to be persecuted. Though I would suggest to you that its often the religious folk doing the persecuting. That is not to imply that Christians have a monopoly on persecution or on any form of deceit or abuse. But they account for a good share of it. I often make the point that Christianity or Catholicism is particularly deprave when it is combined with ambition.

My latest example comes from a company being closed down in the Philippines. I have known these people for some time. I respect their aspirational values, but combined with religion it takes on a particularly ugly path. Charged with responsibility for disposing of company assets this woman (lets call her Jane) has taken it upon herself to take possession of the company's future, some $US20,000 worth of it, arguing that it was scrap. A deal had already been done to give the furniture to the Church in exchange for storage of tax files, but a good dose of rationalisation saw the charity receive only the junk and the good stuff (the majority of it) disappearing into a vacuum. So the church came up second best. Well God Bless!

More interesting was the fact that Jane was going to make me the God father of her child until she learned that I was an atheist. Well, why should that erk me. Well I know it was never my value system she was interested in, but the fact that I was a foreigner....presumably with money. The politics of getting money in the Philippines (at least by these methods) get very ugly indeed when you see such people blatantly denegrate any person who holds them to account. This is common practice in the Philippines. It is played out in the media constantly in the Philippines. It would be nice to think that there was a clean cut good & evil side, but often its all just ugly shades of grey. This makes it really hard to establish the truth. There is just no reality to these aspirational people who cling to the hope of getting their hands on money, with no long range sense of purpose which might actually incline themselves to EARN it.

It is to easy to find cases of moral greyness in the Philippines. The unfortunate reality is that the good people just end up leaving the country, and the place is left run by despots and wannabes.
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, February 22, 2009

When religious people protest - Part 2

Share |
Here is a really good interview by the AtCentreNetwork. It shows an interview by a reporter with a number of Christians who are protesting outside an abortion clinic. This interview is interesting for a number of reasons.
1. Empathy: The protestors want to make abortion illegal but they are unsure what should happen to the women who have an illegal abortion. In fact they did not think about it. This strikes me as interesting because they judge the behaviour without considering the consequences of the action. This of course is a result of their dogmatic thinking.
2. Unthinking: Its interesting that all of the people interview have not thought much about what they believe, or the consequences of their thinking. They just know its wrong.
3. Evasive: The conversation is uncomfortable for one of them, as I often find with those with a more pronounced ego, such they they no longer want to discuss issues. Having an ego is a sin to them, but being mindless is ok.
4. Detached: There is not a great sense of realism implied by people who want to make a certain act illegal, but give no regard to the amount of punishment that would be attached to the act. The reason of course they have a problem with sanctioning prison is because its a moral judgement. But then what they hell are they doing protesting at the clinic if judgement is immoral.
Andrew Sheldon

When religious people protest - Part 1

Share |
Religious people are among the most vocal of protestors. I don't disparage them for their right or inclination to protest - I disparage them for their lack of consideration, their lack of evidence, and for actually being part of the problem. Take for instance of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, the missing daughter of Casey Anthony. Casey's parents called '911' to report the re-appearance of their daughter, and the disappearance of their grand daughter. They told the police that their daughter disappeared with their car a month ago, and has since returned without their granddaughter. Casey is a suspect in the disappearance of Caylee, and the grandfather might be a suspect also.
In this video clip we can see some very self-righteous people protesting about the disappearance of the child. What is amazing is that they have no idea about the facts. The grandparents have shown consideration and concern for Caylee, but CAUGHT ON VIDEO, as they drive off, look at how these protestors treat their child, who lies injured on the ground.

What is the justification for these self-righteous people hounding these people. One has to acknowledge that these protestors are very vocal about an incident that is peripheral to their lives. Might one assume that the protestors are themselves victims of incest? Unfortunately victims don't make the best defenders of justice. They don't make great parents; but they do make great participants for a lynch mob.

I am not suggesting that the grandparents are without blame. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Caylee's death is suspicious. Its possible that George molested his daughter, or that his daughter killed Caylee. She may have rationalised that Caylee is evil, maybe that its her father's child. I don't know. One cannot make accurate assertions without more evidence. The grandfather has since been hospitalised for suicide. The question is why? Did he feel guilty for incest? Did he fill guilty for raising a possible murderer? Maybe he was simply overwhelmed by the relentless hounding by the press and protestors. We can only wait as more evidence unfolds.

So what is the link to religion you might ask? I suggest you will find it in the family, and even in the protestors. Its evident in the dogmatic assertions detached from reason.
Andrew Sheldon

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Recovering Christians

Share |
Many Christians at some point in their life reach a point where they decide to dump the philosophy. At some point they realise that it just doesn't add up. I myself was the child of Christian parents. Not serious Christians, but nevertheless people who considered themselves Christian. My grandmother once said, half jokingly "Andrew, you're a Christian, you've been christened, and you have no choice about it".
But actually for me, it was very easy to break out of that thinking because I always had a healthy respect for science. I would go to the library and read about geology. Nothing more grounding than that for building up a logical framework. Being a loner also meant I was not inclined to develop into a social metaphysician with a collectivist sense of reality.
Upon reading philosophy at the age of 19yo I immediately dropped Christianity like a sack of potatoes. In Ayn Rand's arguments, as presented in her non-fiction and fiction, I had never read books so 'strictly correct' in their damnation of religion. Terms were defined, arguments were well-founded. No stone was left unturned. I had the certainty that people should come to expect. I didn't know everything to be sure, but I had the tools to expand my knowledge, and it made me very confident in myself. I wasn't pious. I was certain in my core knowledge because I understood the premises upon which those principles were founded. It gave me enormous pride. It did not give me a lot of friends because I was so keen to learn that I was challenging others at every turn. I am sure I was quite annoying because if you were not logical you were evil. My values have matured, but actually the core values remain.
The problem with Christianity is that people base their lives on it, and people are reluctant to change. I was 19yo when I changed. It would be far harder for a person to drop Christianity at 40yo, and still harder at 60yo. It does happen, as I know people who have studied Objectivism at 60yo and been changed. The more probable outcome is repudiation of what they know to be right, but vaguely threatening. Vaguely so because they will not fully identify their contradictions because they would feel guilty. Its like starting over. But really its not like you have to re-learn everything. You just have to correct ethical principles, and re-integrate.
The alternative is to become a bitter, cynical person. This is what happens to the repressors.
Andrew Sheldon

Christians as parents

Share |
Nothing could possibly be worse than having Christian parents. The more Christian they are, the more dangerous. The problem as I see it is the following:
1. Impossible standards: Christians have a philosophical code which is anti-life. You can't live it. You are not supposed to. The code is intended to undermine your self-worth, to leave you damned in perpetuity. Remember you are evil by nature. A contradiction in terms, as ethics pertains to choice, not to robots.
2. Self-loathing: The implication is that Christians make the most condescending, autocratic and tyrannical parents because they need to deflect their own feelings of self-loathing. They can't be good, but by relative standards they need to feel better than someone else.
3. Judgemental: In the context of child raising, Christian parents can be very critical of their children. If they are a church elder, then they are even worse because they feel that their children are a measure of their own capacity as good Christians. The implication I find is that the children often are fearful of their parent(s), and have high levels of personal self-assurance. Everything they do is questioned. More problematic is that the standard they are being measured by is unintelligible, dogmatic. You might have heard of adults who say their parents were very hard on them; but they recognise that they were fair or that they did bad things. I'm not convinced they could not have been better parents, but at least they were able to conclude that their parents had a rational standard of value. My mother was subjected to this type of abuse because her father was a church minister. Fortunately he didn't sexually abuse her. That of course is another blog story.
4. Dogma: There is no good that can come from dogma. Acceptance of rules because they come from parents is not healthy because morality is contextual. Dogma does not help to develop a child's capacity to develop a moral system of values, but rather imposes a list of rules. Knowledge is a hierarchy of principles that derive from the facts of reality. It is not a list of assertions or 'commandments'. There is nothing wrong with providing kids with a list of rules for simplification, but this is no substitute for basing those rules in reality, or placing them in an intelligible moral framework. You won't find one in the dogmatic Bible. Its groundless assertion. Nonsense. The fact that you can quote it is not a badge of honour; its the surface wound of a scared childhood.
Andrew Sheldon

Christians and contracts - protecting yourself

Share |
This blog is the story of two Christians - one with full-blown dogmatism, the other with the shallow superficial type. Lets call them 'DOG' and 'SHAL'. SHAL is a friendly Filipino guy who is very affable and polite. He managed to find a client who wanted a website developed. He outsourced the project to a colleague at his office. The colleague 'DOG' was happy to perform the service for $300, allowing SHAL to charge the Western client $500, giving him a $200 profit.
Upon completing the job, DOG told SHAL that his normal terms for referrals is 15% of the fee, meaning that he would get the $500 and pay SHAL just $75. This was no doubt good money for doing nothing, but then it was not as had been agreed.
It's hard to imagine how DOG could rationalise this. Maybe he convinced himself that he did more work than had originally been outlined. Maybe he thought I can afford to burn SHAL because they no longer work together, and they were not close friends. Maybe he thought he was evious because he was putting in so much effort (i.e. all the programming) but getting so little return. Maybe he thought a verbal agreement is not a real agreement, just a rough estimate.
From SHAL's perspective, he probably thought, I've known this guy for 3-4 years, so he's not going to cheat me. This guy goes to church, he's even in the church choir, so he is not going to cheat him. I myself am surprised because he will not get anymore business. But then herein lies the problem. DOG is no doubt confident of his own sales that he probably does not think he will need to rely on SHAL in future, so better to betray him on terms today.
Clearly the moral of this story is that you can only deal with Christians from a position of strength. Ultimately the best source of strength is a written contract. I therefore warn Christians and non-Christians alike, if you deal with those who profess to be Christian or morally superior, make sure you have recourse.
I think honest people even will go to the position of locking themselves into unfavourable terms because they have no problem taking responsibility. Those who resent you for questioning their integrity by requesting a contractual agreement are a worry. Do not back down!

The intent here is not to show that all Christians are cheats, or that all cheats are only Christians. The intent is to show that Christianity enables a pattern of thought that sometimes results in cheating or gross rationalisations to obtain financial reward or to break commitments. It does this by encouraging dogmatism and invalid, subjective ethical judgements. At a psychological it also encourages evasion and repression by undermining the capacity of the person to think.
The more important objective of this blog is to show that Christianity is not a badge of respectibility. I was sooner respect a gang member than a Christian. The more they go to church the greater the level of delusion. The more successful or ambition, the greater the level of delusion.
Andrew Sheldon

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Christians in search of answers

Share |
Humans have a desire for a sense of personal control or security. Men tend to even be more ambitious skill and want a sense of efficacy. Men need to be good at something. I doubt there is really much dividing men and women in this respect other than the values which shape women from childhood. Certainly women should be encouraged to be efficacious in some field if that is what they want.
The problem with a search for self-control or self-assurance is that its not a pursuit of values, its a search for self-assurance. Its not an endeavour that is going to lead you into fresh ideas, but rather a path which will find you rationalising that your existing ideas are right. This is actually the origin of self-righteousness and arrogance. Call it entrenched thinking as opposed to a thought process which is always open to new ideas. Of course, open to the extent that listening does not detract from your focus of achieving goals.
Christians of course come in all shapes and sizes. There are people for whom Christianity is something they don't give much mind; who might well think, aahh Yeh I can love God if it gets me to heaven. I can be kind to others, no problem since its consistent with practicality anyway. Yeh I can give money to a needy person every Xmas. Its nothing to me. But herein lies the rationalisation....its nothing to these people. They are essentially self-interested people rationalising that they profess certain values, but in reality they act selfishly. But its not selfishnes with any integrity. Its an indulgent or subjective sense of value. In fact, by objective standards, its self sacrifice. Mind you such Christians tend to have a strong ego, are intelligent, efficacious in some compartmentalised area of life, they are independent and doing quite well, thank you very much! But the extent to which they are religious is the extent to which they are undermining their thought process or insightfulness.
The greater concern is the deluded Christian (or child of a Christian) in search of answers. The problem as I see it is that they have been raised with dogma, self-sacrifice as moral values. They don't have a well-developed thought process, and they direct their search towards the familiar rather than the disparities. They are basically trying to shore up their existing premises rather than challenge them. A critical thinker does both. Logic demands differentiation and synthesis.
For this reason, they join these cults and other weird religious groups, of which there are too many to name. It is no accident that there are so many in the USA.
Of course you don't need to be a Christian to be insecure or vulnerable, but you do need to be to end up in a cult. Another expression of collectivist values might drift into socialist organisations or join a hippie commune. That is where you get your Christian chasing the REDS under the bed. The moral crusader - and in the USA - they have guns. The lynch mobs branded the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) being a case in point.
It is therefore not surprising that Christians and
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, February 9, 2009

A clash of values - doing business with a Christian

Share |

In this blog I take the opportunity to cast dispersions on religion. Religion is of course the dominant value system in the Western world, and for that reason it goes unchallenged because its considered impractical to challenge it. This article will no doubt have negative implications for my future career. Why? Because contrary to Christian philosophy – they all judge – as they were supposed to. The problem is their judgement is motivated by fear and evasion rather than a respect for facts. The following is a recount of a dialogue with a Christian on an online trading site.

The counterparty in this dialogue has been concealed because its purely for educational purposes.

Communication before the auction

Hi Joe, I am living in XXXXX. It would be inconvenient to go to the South Island to get it, unless I organised a canoe trip to there in future. Might you have reason to meet half way in Wellington? I was the one who asked if you wanted to relist. I know the product, so if the condition is good, I can buy. I have a Tahiti already overseas. Might also be interested in the Tahiti as well for GF. posted by: shouganai 2:11 pm, Tue 30 Dec

Hi, we will be going to Wellington some time the end of March if this suits you. 9:09 am, Fri 2 Jan

After the auction

Hi Joe, I bought your canoe online. As per my posting below, I am a firm buyer, though I have a problem with a bank deposit payment because you could leave the country. Will you accept Paypal, credit card, cash on delivery (Wellington) as previously indicated? Sorry to ask this after purchasing one item, but TradeMe gives me no option to contact you. This method of purchase is more secure because if the canoe goes astray I can do a charge-back for non-performance. You don't have a credit history on TradeMe as a seller either. If you have other items like life jackets, oars, helmets I would be interested in those as well, subject to quality and price issues. Let me know, and I'll accept your offer at $210 on the Tahiti canoe as well. Thanks, Andrew

Thanks for getting back to me, I understand your concern about payment and oddly enough the reason we will be in Wellington the end of March is we are heading overseas, So now I've told you when I'm going to leave the country you don't need to worry. But our kids want to go to Wellington before we leave for a weekend, this will more than likely be Feb sometime does this still suit you? and cash on delivery will have to be fine. I'll keep you updated on our plans. Also I'm a Christian and stealing is not my thing :)

Hi Joe, Feb is even better, so that's no problem. I'm an atheist, but stealing is not my thing either. And I would caution you that there are Christians that do steal. Mostly it just comes down to a capacity to rationalise and opportunity. :) Regards, Andrew

A month passed until I initiated the next communication

Hi Joe, Are you still retaining the Bali canoe? And do you still envisage going to Wellington in Feb? Thanks, Andrew

No reply for 3 days

Hi Joe, You don't seem to be responding to my emails. I bought a canoe from you. Are you honouring our agreement? You even said you were a Christian. I'm interested to know what that means to you? Does it mean you are 'only human'? I would hope that means I should look up rather than down upon you. I hope I am wrong about you. Maybe you are rationalising that I can get one elsewhere. Yeh, but now I am left unprepared for an upcoming trip. Nice to receive an apology if you sold it elsewhere. It would be nice to get a reply so I know if you are overseas, out canoeing, or just repressing your guilt. I'm going with repression, it’s very popular these days. Regards, Andrew

Andrew. Firstly- Get over the attitude. Secondly- We are not sat by the computer waiting for your emails. (It was Waitangi weekend we was busy, However none of your business). Yes we still have the canoe but have not yet sorted out our plans to wellington. However after your outburst and total lack of trust maybe the deal is not such a good idea. Remember we were trying to help you out by meeting in Wellington. Apology.... no I don't think so we never agreed on any set day. I am sorry that everyone in your eyes is trying to rip you off, we have bought and sold many items and not come across this before (the double canoe was paid for immediately and they collected it from the Picton ferry terminal. They were happy and posted that on Trade Me.)

Regards Joe

Hi Joe, There is no need to be defensive....I was merely entertaining the possibility that agreements mean nothing to some people, and you might be one of them. My attitude is an extension of your comment upon purchase where you implied that you are a Christian, so therefore I am safe. Christianity is often used as an ethical device by others looking to gain others confidence. I was suspicious from that conversation. Yeh, I've dealt with a lot of Christians. I did consider the possibility that you might have been on holidays, and I concede that I could have waited longer than 3 days. A friend is asking me to travel so that created some urgency, and I wanted to canoe.
Actually I don't think having a holiday on Waitangi constitutes an issue of privacy, but clearly you don't like your honesty being questioned by people who have never met you. The distrust is because I have never met you and your lack of reply, and the Christian declaration. Probably best left unsaid - as it sounded so morality superior (arrogant). The fact that you were on holiday is pertinent because it’s a reasonable explanation for not replying. I should have waited longer before answering.

I actually didn't perceive the delivery to Wellington as helping me out, because you are not going out of your way. As I understood it, your kids wanted to go there, so easy to bring it along. So I perceived it as a counter-party trying to sell their product, and doing whatever it takes to do it. I suggest if there was any significant Christian charity (which you never see :) ) then you would be making such a sacrifice. i.e. In fact to be a very good Christian, you should be coming to Wanganui. But actually, I have too much regard for others to ask that, and too little belief that Christians actually believe in self-sacrifice. Anyway, everyone has their spin on Christianity. The story has changed so much in 2000 years, so it’s now more selfish, e.g. Charity begins in the home.

Correct, you don't owe me an apology. I merely canvassed the possibility that you might, and was trying to solicit a response rather than an evasion (i.e. The possibility of no reply) that gave me no idea where I stand.

I don't have a fear that everyone is going to rip me off, but I know there are dishonourable people in the world. That is reality. And there are more of them doing deals on the internet where they can stay anonymous. The fact that you are going overseas is also reason for distrust. Like I said, I was open to the possibility that you might have bad character. I don't think you should give so much weight to what strangers think of you. In fact you might show more empathy for their vulnerability. After all it’s possible I will be at risk, whereas you might have happily sold the canoe to a neighbour.
For what it’s worth I am pleased you think values are important. A lot of people don't. But clearly if you are acting on the premise that you are doing me a favour, then you are mistaken, and PERHAPS being dishonest with yourself. That's common too. Why? Because you are professing to be morally superior when you are not. Not that I consider charity as moral. I actually regard selfishness as virtuous, but not the flawed Christian conception. My guess is you didn't see that response coming. Regards, Andrew

Mr. Sheldon, You are making this very personal and your personal opinion is not something that I am at all interested in. You really need to get over the whole Christian thing. We are selling a Canoe that is all! YOU were the one that said it would be hard to get to the South Island so please a one line response will be more than enough. Do you still want the Canoe...YES or NO? If not that is fine. However If you do, unless you are prepared to pick it up here you will have to wait until we get to Wellington and that will likely be mid March. I would like to remind you that in the advert on Trade-Me we ONLY offered delivery to the South Island. Regards, Joe

Hi Joe, Everything is personal, that's what makes values worth pursuing. I didn't need to know your religion. You volunteered that info, I just made a value judgement based on the limited knowledge I had..hoping for a reply; to which you got defensive...but enough philosophy.

Back to the canoe. You offered to deliver the canoe to Wellington - in the ASK QUESTIONS section. But it’s ok, I might be able to relieve you of that burden. I might actually have reason to go to the South Island to meet a friend, though it’s not certain I will, or that I will take the car. I'm currently waiting for him to come back to me. Regards, Andrew

Andrew, we have just got advice from the team at trade me as the deal between us is not working. They not only told me to put what has happened in your feedback but also have stated that payment has to be received within a week of the auction closing, this is not open to discussion afterwards. As there has not been any payment within a week of the online auction, the auction has been broken. Before you start to jump up and down stating I could run off with the money, I would just like to point out a couple bought the double canoe, they paid for it by the Friday and they had it by the Sunday, they kept to all the online auction code of conduct and so did I and if you want you can read that in their feedback. Didn't have any personal insults from them. Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask why this auction between us didn't work but the auction between myself and the other couple (who I didn't know) worked. Interesting under the code of conduct all buyers and sellers are expected: "Conduct themselves honestly and in good faith at all times" I have been honest and interestingly the word "faith" I thought I would look that up in the New Zealand dictionary- 1 strong belief; trust. 2 a system of religious belief. Did you have any trust from the beginning? N.Z is a Christian country, so I didn't feel I was out of order to state I'm a Christian. If a Bible ever does falls on your doorstep look up 2Timothy 3:1-7, see I'm not sure why but this scripture keeps coming into my head when I read your Emails (maybe it’s the part that talks about being self-assuming, haughty, headstrong ect.), receiving Emails from you strengthens our faith in the Bible, so Thank you for that.

By the way as for philosophy you may want to remember that one man's philosophy is to another verbal diarrhoea. Please don't even bother to reply with a thesis on your own personal view points that we have absolutely no interest in,you can't seem to get it we were selling a canoe nothing more. I'll save you the time and block you out of my Email address. Joe.

Hi Joe, I don't care if you read this or not, it’s all content for my blog on religion, so the reply to you is incidental. The primary goal is research for my blog. In response to all your points:

1. True to my early points, you are taking the high (self-righteous) moral ground and contacted TradeMe. So what? No doubt you gave them your biased perspective. The context which you will be missing is that prior to the auction you offered to deliver to Wellington (saving me a $350-450 ferry trip). You agreed to deliver the canoe to Wellington, and it was cash on delivery. The point being that I did not re-negotiate the delivery terms after, it was in the questions.

2. I had a legitimate reason not to pay because you mentioned that you were going overseas. You say that the other canoe was sold without incident. Likely they were going to the South Island anyway, or had it delivered, and they wanted it within one week. You probably didn't tell them you were Christian, or maybe they were as well. Maybe they know less about human nature because you are behaving as a Christian would behave. i.e. rationalisation, evasion.

3. You said that you have been honest and forthright from the start, but actually I have found you to engage in gross rationalisations.

4. It was I that contacted you wondering whether the sale was going to proceed. I conceded that I could have waited more than 3 days before casting dispersions on your character. I actually agree I have a low opinion of Christian values for the reasons highlighted by this conversation.

5. Where is the evidence that I have not acted dishonestly, or in bad faith?

6. Well I don't read the Bible because it’s all dogmatic assertion divorced from the real world, but I will indulge you. Am I self-assuming, haughty, headstrong ect? Yep, all true, and you are insecure, evasive and repressed, which is not a combination that is going to get along. I have (honestly) conceded that I should have waited a few more days before sending my follow-up email. Three days was not enough.

7. The prospect that my emails strengthened your faith in the Bible is contradiction. Faith is unconditional, so my actions should have no impact. But there you go, the Bible has contradictions, so why should I expect any less from you.

8. Actually NZ is not a Christian country, it is just a country dominated by Christians. Let me go further. Politically there is a separation of religion and the head of state. If you want a religious country, you will find more luck in Iran, where there is a religious head of state. Secondly, the other aspect of NZ, the market economy is based on the premise of self-interest, which is contrary to the philosophy of selflessness which you espouse. You trade value for value, not selfless act for selfless act. For example, I don't surrender my money for more than I judged the value of your product, and you did not deliver to my city because it’s too far away. We reached an agreement half way in between at your convenience and mine.

9. In conclusion, this online sale failed because I sometimes choose not to grant people contractions. Sometimes for practical reasons I don't feel inclined to correct people. Usually Christians are more gracious than you, since I often debate them when they come to my door. The fact that I did not validate your repressed, conflicted ego made you upset and emotional. It’s to be expected. Did I expect you to change your values. No. This is merely an educational tool for those who want to understand the true nature of religion. Thanks for the example of your values.

10. You should consider this as you 10 Commandments if you want to be a better person. Of course I don't expect it.

I dare say that people will think me as much a 'religious' zeolot as Joe. True enough. I think values are important, and I want to bring to the forefront of people's minds the importance of effective thinking, and warn people as to the dangers of religion. The intent is not to persecute Joe. No force has been applied to Joe. When he stops being self-righteous the discussion will be over, and I will shift to another issue. The good news is - I don't go knocking of doors :) But as you can guess, I am always willing to open them. Always disappointed. I have lengthy conversations, but it always ends in empty assertions and quotes from the Bible. The contradictions I identify, they cannot answer. See other blog posts.

In defence of Joe, I don't think he is a person with bad intent. Why? Because he is proud. Its actually a good value if not rationalised. I just think he has a flawed value system which is embraced by too many people. Its great that he believes in something, but I want to convey that his dogmatic ideas are a threat to civil society because they are motivated by fear. His rationalisations meant I did not get the canoe I contracted to buy. This is the type of rationalisation that turned a previously 'civil' society like downtown LA into a looting tribe, as we saw with the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

THE END. P.S. Unless Joe is like me and likes the final word.

Is Christianity the root of all evil? No, but its close. The root is man's failure to live in accordance with his nature - He needs to think rather than evade that responsibility. To focus rather than repress. There is too much of the latter, whether motivated by religion or collectivism.

Andrew Sheldon

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Evidence for evolution and against creationism

Share |
If you want evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years I suggest you study geology. There is so much evidence for a protracted history for Earth - it begs belief. Let me start:
1. Geological principles of cross-cutting rock structures
2. Process of sediment to rock maturation - we can observe rocks deposited up to 7,000 metres think without deformation, so they must have been layed down. We can observe typical speeds of deposition.
3. Dating of radiometric isotopes in rocks, ice core. Not just one isotope but a plethora of them from different rocks, each of which tells a story that integrates with the rest.
4. Tree rings alone can be 6,000 years. But there are also tree fossils preserved in rocks which can extend the sentiment history even further. Afterall x number of rings in a rocks must be at least X times older than the rock in which it was found, and they take a lot of compression & heat to mature sediments into rocks.
5. Lake sentiments recording the annual deposition of snow-melt related muds.
6. The massive global database of rocks around the world - empirical veracity
7. The movement of hot spots - eg. Hawaii has left a trail of volcanoes which tell us the age, distance, speed of movement
8. The movement of continents - magnetic reversals from spreading centres
9. Direct observation of geological events. eg. Frequency of meteorites.

Given more time I will think of some more. But lets stack the Bible up against science. They don't so much argue that science has contradictions, but that there is gaps in science. Its not surprising or a concern that there should be gaps. The important issue is that assertions are based on evidence. So let's look at the Bible.

Evidence of strange mystical powers? The Bible and other sources showing that people paralysed in fear by experiences they didn't understand in a pre-science era.
Evidence to refute such assertions. Given the Bible was written by disciples of God, contradictions in the Bible and its philosophy highlight its flaws. This blog is all about those, so don't waste any time.

I would leave you with another point. There is no reason to believe there was actually a starting point for the universe. I would contend that the universe has never started, that it has changed forms, but it has never come or gone in or out of existence. For that reason, I assert that the universe has always existed and always will. I would argue that the formation of the universe as we know it 24 billion years ago was actually just the start of a cycle, and that there has been an infinite number of such cycles.
Andrew Sheldon
Attention all atheists!!
In fact anyone who has had an interesting encounter with a Christian which involved manipulation, deception or blatant rationalisation. This is research or material for a forthcoming book. I am not suggesting that all Christians are criminals, dangerous or threats to society, but I am suggesting that Christianity is a basis for moral inefficacy. There is a reason why Christian nations are always at war. There is a reason why former Christians (or children of Christians) have a tendency to drift into cults and extreme religious groups. Thank you for any life experiences you can recall. ----------------------------------------------- Andrew Sheldon